Oklahoma 46

Working through photographs taken in Alaska and Canada I am bummed by the number of sun spots. I routinely use the tulip hood designed for the lens - don't remember the last time I didn't use a hood. There were times when I maneuvered to avoid the sunspot but I'm not sure that was always successful. This trip was over 3 months in length so I don't remember all the details of each shot, but is there something, some technique I need to adopt to avoid this problem? What am I missing? Paying attention might be beneficial but that can be stressful for an old man. So far I've been successful at removing the spots in processing but I don't enjoy PP. As a matter of fact I pretty much hate post processing and wish memory cards could be loaded into the computer with professionally finished photos ready for viewing moments later. What a dream huh? Is sunspots just the price you pay for taking pictures when the sun is close to the horizon?

Equipment is Canon 7DmkII, 100 - 400mm L mk I, 18 - 135mm kit lens and 10 - 18mm 1:4.5 - 5.6. The sunspots are almost certainly from the last 2 lenses on the list. It's hard to imagine a sunspot getting through that hood for the 100 - 400mm.

p.s. I searched UHH on the topic but only found advise on correcting the problem with PP.

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

marty wild Loc: England

I suppose you can can shoot early or later avoiding the sun is much easier than photoshop

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

The spots are flare. Simple as that. Okay, it's not so simple... : - )

A few years back I was shooting every Saturday in a venue that was a large room with one entire wall of windows. Not a problem here in the winter, but all summer long that was a wall of bright light, and any image that included any part of it was prone to showing flare. Reduced contrast at the least, but the typical types of flare commonly seen too. If I had my back to the wall, the light was fabulous, but if something I wanted to shoot was "back to the wall" it was nasty. The first lens I tried using was a fairly nice, in other places for other things, Nikkor 28-105mm. The problem was that anything shot with a very bright light behind it had hideous flare around areas of transition from dark to light. So I bought a Tamron 24-135mm lens. In most ways it was not nearly as nice. 7 diaphragm blades instead of 9, no macro mode, etc etc. But pointed towards those windows, it produce much better results! It also happens that if I used those two lenses standing outside and the sun itself was shining into the lens, the Tamron was horrible and the Nikkor was okay! But eventually Nikon came out with the Nikkor 24-120mm f/4 lens, and that solved my problems. It was much better than either of the other two in situations where flare was significant.

The point is that your lens makes a difference, as well as knowing just where the lens will work and where it won't. I had to try three different lenses to find one that did well enough for what I wanted.

I would suspect that in general you'll find that for any given focal length range the more expensive and higher quality the lens, the better. Expensive lenses really do have differences...

TheDman Loc: USA

You can try all the techniques you want, but for some shots pp is the only answer.

Oklahoma 46

Thank you Dirtpusher. Long live Rush Limbaugh and go Sooners.

Apaflo upgrading the 18 - 135 is on the list. Maybe that will solve the problem. I shall use your answer to work on my wife's tender sensibilities and convince her that new lenses are truly needed for long life and happiness. By the way, my son-n-law is an Army Blackhawk pilot now at Ft Wainwright by Fairbanks so we will very likely be there again. Where are some good places to go to get pics of snowy owls?

jmcgloth Loc: Ocean Park, WA

SPF 70

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

My "cure" for lens flare is to use a remote and to hold a rigid piece of cardboard between the sun and the lens (the cardboard should put the lens in the shade). Be sure to keep the cardboard out of the photo! This little trick works most of the time.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Not flare, they are reflections from multiple surfaces within the lens. The more individual surfaces (zooms usually have more surfaces than prime lenses) the more spots you will see.

Flare is mostly a general loss of contrast due to light bouncing around inside the camera before reaching the sensor. It's worse if the lens is not clean.

You often get both at the same time. You can minimize it but you can't completly avoid it when there is a strong light source in front of the camera close to the field of view.

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

Lot of eagles down behind keystone dam on West side. There is a nest hatchery.

Good luck with the wife.

Boomer Sooner

Jim Bob

Angle the lens so flare is not an issue.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

You have just described the same thing twice and claimed it is different!

Go look it up and stop trying so hard to argue.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

They are two different phenomena. You can have either one without the other. You may call both of them flare but that's your lack of understanding.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Look it up on Wikipedia.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I don't have to. You are conflating two different phenomena under a single name, flare. Maybe you can't tell them apart.

The OP was asking about "sunspots". Sunspots do not reduce contrast, flare does.